Re Teo Jun Kiat, Evan (alias Zhang Junjie)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edmund Leow JC
• Judgment Date: 23 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 274
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 197 of 2015 (HC/Summons No 1927 of 2015)
• Year: 2015
• Published date: 30 October 2015
• Hearing Date: 29 May 2015,21 May 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan (Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Jeyendran Jeyapal and Ang Ming Sheng Terence,Christopher Daniel and Aw Sze Min
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Admission
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 274

Edmund Leow JC: Introduction

This application raised an interesting question of law as to how the court should exercise its discretion in an application under s 32(3) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The applicant, Mr Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan (“Mr Jeyaraj”) had applied for an order permitting his practice trainee, Mr Teo Jun Kiat, Evan (Zhang Junjie) (“Mr Teo”), limited audience before the courts on behalf of Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP (“the Firm”), that is, before a Judge of the High Court sitting in chambers, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, a District Judge, a Magistrate, or the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the State Courts (“part-call application”). At the time of the part-call application, Mr Teo was serving his practice training period but had yet to undertake Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations (“Part B Examinations”).

Before me, the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) and the Attorney-General (“AG”) objected to the part-call application. They submitted that permitting a practice trainee who has not completed Part B (ie, completed the preparatory course leading up to the Part B Examinations (“Part B Course”) and passed the Part B Examinations) to be part-called was not appropriate. The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (“SILE”) did not object to this application. The issue to be decided in this case was whether a practice trainee should be permitted to be part-called subject to his or her completion of the Part B Course and passing the Part B Examinations.

Facts

Mr Teo’s situation was somewhat unusual. Mr Teo had completed the final examinations of his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Sydney on 23 November 2013. Given the timing of his return to Singapore upon completion of his studies, he chose to commence his relevant legal training (“RLT”) with Selvam LLC on 2 January 2014 and completed it six months later. This was an unusual situation; graduates from overseas universities, such as those graduating from universities in the United Kingdom, would usually only undertake their RLT after completing the Part A Examinations. This was because the timing of their graduation was likely to be in June, which used to be just prior to the commencement of the preparatory course leading up to the Part A Examinations (“Part A Course”).

Upon completing the Part A Course, the National University of Singapore certified on 24 December 2014 that Mr Teo had passed the Part A Examinations. By then, he had commenced his practice training contract with the Firm on 4 December 2014 and received approval from SILE in February 2015 on the manner in which he was to serve his practice training period. By 30 January 2015, Mr Teo’s name had also been entered into the register of qualified persons maintained by SILE. Thus, prior to commencing his practice training contract with the Firm on 4 December 2014, Mr Teo did not have the opportunity to undergo the Part B Course or the Part B Examinations. This part-call application was filed about four months after Mr Teo had commenced his practice training contract.

For the purposes of this application, Mr Teo listed out the details of his practical legal experience garnered over the years. This included attending pre-trial conferences, criminal sentencing hearings, a civil trial in the State Court, and attending an appeal against a summary judgment before a Judge in chambers during his vacation internships in the years of 2011 and 2012. In addition, during his RLT, he also attended a hearing involving an application for a worldwide Mareva injunction, and an application for pre-action discovery. Lastly, during his training contract with the Firm, he attended a 10-day criminal trial in the State Court and assisted in a striking-out application. The applicant also claimed that, as an Australian graduate, Mr Teo had the benefit of undertaking mandatory studies in the area of civil procedure, criminal procedure, and professional ethics, which overlapped with subjects in the Part B Course, and he was thus equipped with a basic understanding on these subjects. References were also made to Mr Teo’s commendable grades obtained in his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Sydney.

The applicant’s submissions

The applicant submitted that s 32(3) of the Act contains certain mandatory requirements, but does not include an express requirement that the practice trainee has to complete the Part B Course in order to be part-called. The purpose or object of this section, it was submitted, was to “serve the interest of the profession by permitting a practice trainee some introduction to pleading and gain for him some direct experience thereto”. To this end, the applicant submitted that Mr Teo possesses sufficient practical experience, as outlined above at [5], for the purposes of being part-called.

The Law Society’s submissions

The Law Society conceded that there is no express requirement in s 32(3) but relied on the amendments to the Act by way of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2011 (Act 8 of 2011) (“the Amendment Act 2011”) which expanded the scope of what a qualified person within the meaning s 2(1) of the Act could do after being part-called. The right of audience, it was submitted, was no longer restricted to a Judge or Registrar in chambers but a qualified person could now appear in open court on behalf of the Singapore law practice with which he had a training contract. The Law Society submitted that since the scope of appearance for a part-called qualified person had expanded, a more stringent qualifying criterion should be applied to those seeking to be part-called.

To this end, it was submitted that completion of the Part B Course and Part B Examinations is a suitable qualifying criterion, given that the content taught through the Civil Litigation Practice and Criminal Litigation Practice modules equip the qualified person with the necessary substantive and procedural knowledge to appear in court. The Ethics & Professional Responsibility...